Protecting Privacy in Software Logs: What Should Be Anonymized?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software logs, generated during the runtime of software systems, are essential for various development and analysis activities, such as anomaly detection and failure diagnosis. However, the presence of sensitive information in these logs poses significant privacy concerns, particularly regarding Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and quasi-identifiers that could lead to re-identification risks. While general data privacy has been extensively studied, the specific domain of privacy in software logs remains underexplored, with inconsistent definitions of sensitivity and a lack of standardized guidelines for anonymization. To mitigate this gap, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of privacy in software logs from multiple perspectives. We start by performing an analysis of 25 publicly available log datasets to identify potentially sensitive attributes. Based on the result of this step, we focus on three perspectives: privacy regulations, research literature, and industry practices. We first analyze key data privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) , to understand the legal requirements concerning sensitive information in logs. Second, we conduct a systematic literature review to identify common privacy attributes and practices in log anonymization, revealing gaps in existing approaches. Finally, we survey 45 industry professionals to capture practical insights on log anonymization practices. Our findings shed light on various perspectives of log privacy and reveal industry challenges, such as technical and efficiency issues while highlighting the need for standardized guidelines. By combining insights from regulatory, academic, and industry perspectives, our study aims to provide a clearer framework for identifying and protecting sensitive information in software logs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".